Subject: Re: [Insipid] Addressing security-related comments / requirements spec

From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 21:24:20 +0000

Folks,

Coming back to this.  I did receive a few replies, but no concrete 
suggestion on what to change.

I suppose the question is, for the requirements document are we 
satisfied with the language in the security considerations section or is 
there more people feel we should add?

I have other changes to incorporate into the text and will publish a new 
revision for review, but I would like to get a final word on the 
comments from Vijay.

Paul

------ Original Message ------
From: "Paul E. Jones" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: 9/25/2013 9:58:05 PM
Subject: [Insipid] Addressing security-related comments / requirements 
spec
>Folks,
>
>Vijay Gurbani provided feedback suggesting some improvements might be 
>needed in the requirements document.  See this message: 
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg10419.html. 
>  I'm referring specifically to his comment on Section 7.
>
>We had a couple of follow-up messages that you should probably also 
>read:
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg10437.html
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg10507.html
>
>After reviewing his comments, I would like to ask the group what, if 
>any, changes the group feels we should make to the requirements 
>document.
>
>Thanks!
>Paul
>
>